Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NISAR AHMAD KIYANI VS Respondent: AZAD GOVERNMENT' OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 1135
[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]
Present: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C,J. and Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, J
NISAR AHMAD KIYANI
Versus
AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and another
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1990, decided on 17th June, 1992.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 31-1-1990 in Service Appeal No. 19/224 of 1988).
(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977---
----R. 6(5)---Compulsory removal from service---Inquiry against civil servant-- Validity---Principle that Inquiry Officer must be occupying a post or grade higher than that of accused officer was strictly adhered to in so much as Inquiry Officer was Superintending Engineer and was functioning as Electrical Inspector, while civil servant was Executive Engineer---Civil servant, thus, could not be regarded as equal in status qua Inquiry Officer---Inquiry conducted against civil servant was conducted by a person who was competent to act as such and same was in accordance with law.
(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977----
----R. 2(3)---Inquiry against civil servant---Authorised Officer when debarred from acting as such---Authorised Officer would be debarred to act as Authorised Officer only if he was personally interested in the result of the proceedings--- Authorised Officer would not be debarred to act as such, merely because he was member of Vigilance Commission which reported matter of accused to Government.
Mian Muhammad Hayat, Superintending Engineer v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 Lah. 264; Mian Muhammad Abdullah v. The Road Transport Corporation Lahore PLD 1964 Lah. 743; Major Muhammad Nawaz v. Pakistan PLD 1970 Lah. 811; Dr. Abdul Hafeez v. Chairman, Municipal Corporation, Lahore PLD 1967 Lah. 1251; Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Akram Shah 1989 CLC 905; S. Saadat Ali Shah v. Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab 1986 PLC (C.S.) 176 and Muhammad Shabbir v. Executive Engineer, Hafizabad Division (E), WAPDA 1984 PLC (C.S.) 592 ref.
(c) Civil service--
----Departmental inquiry---Any irregularity in departmental proceedings which had not caused any prejudice to accused civil servant, would not vitiate proceedings taken in the case.
(d) Civil service----
---- Departmental inquiry---Opportunity of cross-examination---Non-mention by inquiry officer that such opportunity was given---Effect---Civil servant's objection that in case of some witnesses, it was not recorded that civil servant was granted opportunity of cross examination---No such plea was taken before Service Tribunal---Mere fact that Inquiry Officer did not record that opportunity was given to civil servant would not prove that in fact, no such opportunity was given to him.
M/s. Khardah and Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen AIR 1964 SC 719, State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur AIR 1963 SC 375 and The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal (AIR 1970 SC 2086) ref.
(e) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977---
----R.7-A---Inquiry report---Copy of findings of Inquiry officer and service of fresh charge-sheet on accused civil servant so as to obtain his explanation afresh and sending of such material to Authority, not envisaged by provision of R. 7-A, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1977.
M/s. Khardah and Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen AIR 1964 SC 719, State of Mysore v. Shivabasppa Shivappa Makapur AIR 1963 SC 375; The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lai AIR 1970 SC 2086; Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government PLD 1981 SC 176; Federation of Pakistan v. Abdul Razzaq 1983 SCMR 229; Ch. Munawar Hussain Bhatti v. Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority 1983 PLC (C.S.) 266; Sohrab Khan Kalwar v. Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Department of Food PLD 1980 SC 279 and M. Humayun Zaheer v. Chief Director, Central Directorate of National Savings 1984 PLC (C.S.) 1382 ref.
(f) Evidence Act (I of 1872)---
----S. 67---Letter---Admissibility in evidence---Letters were not admissible in evidence without proving same by producing their writers and without providing opportunity to opposite party for cross-examination.
Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellant.
Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.